EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. What is the EPI?

Transcription

1 1 What is the EPI? The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ( is a comprehensive environmental performance profiling system jointly developed by the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy (YCELP) of Yale University and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University and published every two years since 2006 at the World Economic Forum (WEF). The global EPI ranks how well countries perform on high-priority environmental issues in two broad policy areas: protection of human health from environmental harm and protection of ecosystems. Within these two policy objectives the EPI scores country performance in nine policy categories (issue areas) comprised of 20 indicators. Indicators in the EPI measure how close countries are to meeting internationally established targets or, in the absence of agreed targets, how they compare to the range of observed countries. Why EPI? Modern business and government practices are increasingly using data and big data, to reduce uncertainty and produce more objective policy decisions. Robust measurement also gives policymakers a foundation from which to promote environmental policy. Good environmental measurement strengthens objectivity in environmental policy debates, reduces disagreement on the scope of problems and focusing it instead on solutions. The EPI seeks to provide an insight of the existing environmental data and information, hence better understanding on the environmental challenges faced at local, national and global levels. It is meant to serve as a foundation upon which to make sense of the complexities and nuances of environmental data and results presented by the complex composite index that is the EPI. In general, it offers decision makers and implementers as well as the public access to important environmental data organized in a way that is easily understandable, useful, and drives productive motivation for improvement. The EPI allows countries to compare their performance to neighbours and peers. With the inclusion of time series data, countries can also see how their own performance has changed over time. Malaysia EPI The Malaysia EPI was developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) in 2012 with the cooperation of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in order to provide Malaysian policy makers and the general public data

2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR MALAYSIA 2014 driven information system that is useful decision making tool much needed towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Economic Model (NEM). This country level EPI provides a comprehensive environmental profiling system for the sixteen States in Malaysia including the Federal Territories of Labuan and Putrajaya. The Malaysia EPI ranks the States based on three overarching objectives of high-priority environmental issues: (i) protection of human health from environmental harm, (ii) protection of ecosystems and (iii) socioeconomic sustainability. Within these three policy objectives the Malaysia EPI scores states environmental performance in fourteen policy category comprising 33 indicators that measure how close states are to meeting established targets. The Malaysia EPI Framework The Malaysia EPI is constructed through the calculation and aggregation of 33 indicators reflecting States and National-level environmental data. These indicators are nested into fourteen policy categories, each of which fits under one of three overarching objectives: Environmental Health, Ecosystem Vitality and Socioeconomic Sustainability (Figure 1). Indicators Weightage Environmental indicators are not equal in importance at all times. As new issues and challenges arise, different strategies and focus need to be given priority over others. In EPI, relative importance of each indicator is reflected by the weight assigned to each. Due to methodological procedure, all indicators in a Policy Category carry equal weight. Hence, weight distribution of the fourteen (14) Policy Category in Malaysia EPI was revised and a new set of weights assigned to 2014 Malaysia EPI. The Malaysia EPI framework with weight assignment are given in Figure 1. Overall Performance and Comparison with 2012 Malaysia EPI The Malaysia EPI serves not only to generate environmental performance indicators profile for the States but also presents comprehensive national environmental data that allows for evaluation of where the country stands with respect to each indicator, Policy Category, Objectives and the index scores. The Malaysia EPI national average score has improved from 68.8% in 2012 to 71.8% in The score values remain at three star (yellow colour code) under the newly introduced star rating profile in 2014 Malaysia EPI. At the Objective level, reduction is observed in Environmental Health (from 72.1 % (2012) to 70.5 % (2014)) and slight improvement in Ecosystem Vitality (from 68.6 % (2012) to 68.7 % (2014)). Greater improvement is observed in Socioeconomic Sustainability (from 64.8 % (2012) to 80.6 % (2014)). These comparisons are valid on the basis of the same weightage and low benchmark that are used in 2014 Malaysia EPI. It is believed that greater support and commitment from stakeholders and data custodians that ensure better data capture and processing have important role contributing to better results in the 2014 Malaysia EPI.

3 3 INDEX OBJECTIVE POLICY CATEGORY INDICATORS EPI EPI Environmental Health (29.4) Ecosystem Vitality (48.9) Socioeconomic Sustainability (21.7) Environmental Burden of Disease (7.2) Water Effects on Human (7.4) Air Pollution Effects on Human (7.6) Waste (7.2) Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystem (7.1) Water Effects on Ecosystem (7.0) Biodiversity & Habitat (6.9) Forest & Urban Green Areas (7.0) Fisheries (6.8) Agriculture & Landuse (6.9) Climate Change (7.2) Resource Efficiency (7.2) Environmental Awareness & Behaviour (7.2) Environmental Governance (7.3) Incidents of Dengue Fever (3.6) Toddler Mortality rate (3.6) Access to connected water supply (1.85) Access to clean water for rural areas (1.85) Sewerage facilities (1.85) Improved sanitation for rural areas (1.85) Population weighted PM10 concentration (2.533) Population weighted ground level ozone concentration (2.533) Air Quality Index (2.533) Municipal waste generation per capita (3.6) Hazardous industrial waste generation per industrial GDP (3.6) Sulfur dioxide concentration (3.55) Nitrogen oxides concentration (3.55) River water quality (3.5) Marine Water Quality (3.5) Terrestrial protected areas (3.45) Marine protected areas (3.45) Forest cover (2.333) Urban Green Areas (2.333) Urban Tree Planting (2.333) Fish Stock Overexploited (3.4) Coastal Fishing Pressure (3.4) Pesticide Regulation Compliance (6.9) GHG Emissions per Capita (1.8) Industrial GHG emissions (1.8) Transportation GHG emissions (1.8) Solid waste GHG emissions (1.8) Electricity Intensity per GDP (2.4) Non-domestic water consumption per GDP (2.4) Domestic water consumption per capita (2.4) Environmental awareness (3.6) Environmental behaviour (3.6) Environmental compliance (7.3) Figure Malaysia EPI framework and percent weight assignment (in bracket)

4 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR MALAYSIA 2014 Top policy category performance (scores more than 90%) are observed in Agriculture and Landuse and Environmental Governance, followed by Water Effects on Human, Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystem (APE) and Resource Efficiency (scores more than 80%). Low performance with average scores of less than 50% from the policy targets are observed in Forest and Urban Green Areas (FUG) and Air Pollution Effects on Human (APH). Attention also need to be given to Biodiversity & Habitat (Policy Category Score 51%). Significant improvements are observed over the 2012 Malaysia EPI in four policy categories: Environmental Burden of Disease (EBD), Agriculture and Landuse (A&L), Resource Efficiency (RSE) and Environmental Governance (ENG). Other policy categories show either consistent or slight reduction in performance score compared to the 2012 version. Overall, 2014 Malaysia EPI results show that 4 indicators perform excellent (PTT: ), 9 with good performance (PTT: ), 10 with fair performance (PTT: ) and 5 each with poor (PTT: ) and very poor (PTT: ) performance, respectively. Trend EPI The 2014 Malaysia EPI also computes back-casted indicators PTT scores. The term back-casted refers to application of the 2014 EPI framework and aggregation procedure to historic data, starting from year In this way, it can be seen how environmental performance from year to year may have changed on each indicator. Due to data availability issues, however, not every indicator lends itself to backcasted or trend calculations which renders aggregation into index not possible. Comparison with Malaysia s Performance in Global EPI Both global EPI and Malaysia EPI offer similar concept of comprehensive environmental data presentation in a simple yet meaningful manner through transformation and aggregation processes that take into account meaning and importance of the data with respect to common policy targets. As far as possible, Malaysia EPI utilises similar indicators used in global EPI, thus providing counter balance of the results presented in the global EPI. However, it is not possible to compare both results on the basis of apple-to-apple due to differences in the data sets and low-benchmark, despite similar targets being used. Such differences are also obvious due to the fact that global EPI ranks countries in the world while Malaysia EPI ranks States within a country. States Ranking in 2014 Malaysia EPI Pahang emerged top performer in 2014 Malaysia EPI with overall score of 82.01% followed by Sabah (78.84%), Sarawak (78.81%) and Kedah (78.80%). Sarawak scores

5 5 highest (82.12%) in Environmental Health Objective while Terengganu scores highest (82.38%) in Ecosystem Vitality Objective and Pahang scores highest (90.81%) in Socioeconomic Sustainability Objective. Further details of the 2014 Malaysia EPI scores and ranking are given in Table 1. Table 1 States ranking in 2014 Malaysia EPI State 2014 Malaysia EPI Environmental Health Score (%) Rank Score (%) Rank Score (%) Rank Score (%) Rank Pahang Sabah Sarawak Kedah Johor Terengganu Negeri Sembilan F.T. Labuan Selangor Kelantan Perak Melaka F.T. Putrajaya Pulau Pinang Perlis F.T. Kuala Lumpur Score Target Note: Scores are shown in two decimal points to differentiate States ranking. Objective Ecosystem Vitality Socioeconomic Sustainability Star Rating Star rating introduced in the 2014 Malaysia EPI is meant to provide a simple presentation of environmental profile based on proximity-to-target (PTT) score. This system rates five star to 90.0 PTT 100, four star to 80.0 PTT < 90.0, three star to 60.0 PTT < 80.0, two star to 40.0 PTT < 60.0 and one star to 0 PTT < Each star rating is given a colour code: blue for five star, green for four star, yellow for three star, amber for two star and red for one star. The purpose of Star rating is to motivate improvements towards environmental performance excellence with reference to the assigned policy targets. It is useful for the relevant agencies in promoting policies, strategies, best practices and innovations that form the basis for environmental management excellence, and foster healthy competition among States in implementing environmental policies. Based on the EPI score, only Pahang attained four star rating while most other states attained three star. Star rating for

6 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR MALAYSIA 2014 the States based on Environmental Health, Ecosystem Vitality and Socioeconomic Sustainability objectives is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Performance score and star rating for the States in 2014 Malaysia EPI Objective State Score (%) Star Rating Score (%) Star Rating Score (%) Star Rating Score (%) Pahang Sabah Sarawak Kedah Johor Terengganu Negeri Sembilan F.T. Labuan Selangor Kelantan Perak Melaka F.T. Putrajaya Pulau Pinang Perlis F.T. Kuala Lumpur Score Target Star Rating Note: Total maximum 100 score for EPI is the sum of maximum scores for Environmental Health (29.4), Ecosystem Vitality (48.9) and Socioeconomic Sustainability (21.7). Scores are presented in % of the respective score target values. The proximity-to-target (PTT) score, star rating and colour codes are as follows: PTT Score Star rating Colour 90.0 PTT PTT < PTT < PTT < PTT <

7 7 Bar-Chart and Spider s Web Profile The environmental performance profiles of all the States in Malaysia are also presented in bar chart and spider s web formats, which allow the States to examine closely their respective environmental conditions. For example Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively shows the bar chart profile and spider s web profile for the State of Pahang. Conclusion The 2014 Malaysia EPI offers several innovations over the 2012 version which include introduction of star rating system for environmental performance profiling and generation of long term trend of indicators performance. In order to facilitate communication and dissemination on Malaysia EPI and relevant information, a dedicated Malaysia EPI website ( has also been developed. The 2014 Malaysia EPI has shown better performance over the 2012 Malaysia EPI as a result of better data availability and processing. It is important to note that the value of EPI largely depends on, and therefore limited by data availability. The 2014 Malaysia EPI highlights that the country has been advancing significantly towards data-driven and analytically rigorous environmental policy making. Nevertheless, there are rooms for improvement in areas such as data generation and management in order to close gaps in data coverage, and enhancement of time series data. Lack of available data has resulted in the omission of some potential new indicators such as wastewater treatment, waste recycling and renewable energy. Lack of real data on municipal waste management has left us with predicted data on solid waste generation and GHG emissions from the solid waste. In general, EPI allows for realization of the importance of better data collection, monitoring, consistent reporting, analysis, and mechanisms for independent data verification. It is important to observe and analyse how these indicators influence decision making to improve policies for a better environmental management. By highlighting environmental indicators performance profile and ranking system, it is expected that EPI can immensely contribute towards greater participation and commitment to a more sustainable development and ecosystem in the country. The real value of an environmental performance index though is not represented by the ranking system, rather in the underlying data of the chosen indicators that reflect the state s policy and its implementation.

8 8 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR MALAYSIA 2014 State Profile: Pahang Population: 1,572,700 Land Area: 35,965 km² GDP per Capita (RM Thousand): Level of Aggregation Score (%) Environmental Performance Index (Malaysia EPI) Environmental Health Environmental Burden of Disease Incidents of Dengue Fever Toddler Mortality Rate Water Effects on Human Access to Connected Water Supply Access to Clean Water for Rural Areas Access to Sewerage Facilities Improved Sanitation for Rural Areas Air Pollution Effects on Human Population Weighted PM10 Concentration Population Weighted Ground Level Ozone 37.7 Concentration Air Quality Index Waste Municipal Waste Generation per Capita Hazardous Industrial Waste Generation 90.1 per Industrial GDP 2 Ecosystem Vitality Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystem Sulfur Dioxide Concentration Nitrogen Dioxide Concentration Water Effects on Ecosystem River Water Quality Marine Water Quality Index Biodiversity & Habitat Terrestrial Protected Areas Marine Protected Areas Forest & Urban Green Areas Forest Cover Urban Green Areas Urban Tree Planting Fisheries Fish Stocks Overexploited Coastal Fishing Pressure Agriculture & Landuse Pesticide Regulation Compliance Climate Change GHG Emissions per Capita Industrial GHG Emissions Transportation GHG Emissions Solid Waste GHG Emissions Socioeconomic Sustainability Resource Efficiency Electricity Intensity per GDP Non-domestic Water Consumption per GDP Domestic Water Consumption per Capita Environmental Awareness & Behaviour Environmental Awareness Environmental Behaviour Environmental Governance Environmental Compliance 97.6 Performance Score Figure 2 Environmental indicators performance profile of Pahang

9 9 Figure 3 Spider s web format of environmental indicators performance for Pahang Objective Policy Category Code Environmental Health Ecosystem Vitality Socioeconomic Sustainability Environmental Burden of Disease Water Effects on Human Air Pollution Effects on Human Waste Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystem Water Effects on Ecosystem Biodiversity & Habitat Forest and Urban Green Areas Fisheries Agriculture & Landuse Climate Change Resource Efficiency Environmental Awareness & Behaviour Environmental Governance IDF, TMR CSW, RWS, ASF, ISR PM10, GLO, AQI MWG, HWG SO2, NOX RWQ, MWQI TPA, MPA FOC, UGA, UTP FSO, CFP PRC GHGC, GHGI, GHGT, GHGW EIG, NDWC, DWC ENA, ENB ENC

10 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR MALAYSIA 2014